so do we know what quality armor they modeling for yamato she should have a armor with similar quality to cemented armor of WW1 british dreadnoughts
her armor was very brittle
1 Like
yamato hull strength is too low? it turn into yellow easily in match start.
2 Likes
her armor was good on paper but they used brittle steel so it was weaker then it should be
1 Like
No lol? Yamato armour wasnt cemented it was face hardened. “brittle ahh armour” because “dumb ass test” which would never happend irl and this isnt even Yamatos armour. This piece of armour took from turret intedned for shinano ( shinanos armour was metalurgically a lot worse quality unlike Yamato and Musashi) was tested at 90° point blank and poorly supported without the rest of the turret basically. Which realistically in combat shells would never be hitting turret armour at this angle only at extreme ranges at which it could not penetrate. At this point blank 90° it would penetrate any style of steel does not matter if face hardened or cemented diference would be with hole (face hardened- cracks and chips).
Armour of Yamato and Musashi was very well made and it did not fail what it was designed for. Like said earlyer “Musashi took 20 torpedos 17 bombs and it sunk after 4 hours from minor damages none of the bombs or torpedos penetrated its main armour.” Which no other battleship would take that much nor were they even designed to take such damage Iowa deck wasnt even designed to take +1000 kg bombs to the deck yet Musashi took dozen and none of which penetrated. Yamatos turret face would be impenetrable at any range to Iowas guns.
Soviet battleship armour on other hand. They would not be able to heat threat the thickness that of Soyuz at the time. Its amour would perform worse. And it has untested guns and wtf is that ammo layout and size. Ammo also pretty bs.
4 Likes
It’ll take a lot more than 2x 2000 lb paveways to sink this beast
Then we get more nighthawks spawned
It has tested with about 173 rounds before war and additionally firing 81 rounds during wartime,
Steel had many tiny pieces of dirt and so forth, being about the same as pre-WWI British Vickers Cemented (VC) KC-type armor steel in quality (VC was used for the first time in the Japanese battleship IJN KONGO, built in Britain, and manufactured in Japan under license thereafter), from which the unique Japanese armors New Vickers Non-Cemented (NVNC), the homogeneous, ductile form of VH used in a number of Japanese post-WWI warships, and VH itself was derived (this steel was not up to U.S., British, or German post-1930 steel quality). Carbon content was raised above VC steel level to increase ease of hardening, some copper added to allow some nickel (in short supply in Japan) to be removed (but not much), slight amount of molybdenum added to increase hardenability still more, and the cemented (carburized) thin surface layer used in VC (and in most other, foreign face-hardened armors) was eliminated with no loss of resistance from VC quality (a good design point). Surface of plate face was very smooth, unlike rough, pebbly surface of cemented plates, such as U.S. Navy Class “A” armor.
only reason musashi took so many blows is cause they attacked both sides instead of one
1 Like
Yea, and it existed. Unless like the Russian paper ship that likely would’ve never worked the way it was planned unless major alterations were made. One of the many reasons it was scrapped right after the keel and sub structure was laid. So if the Yamato gets WW1 armor, then the russian boat should get literal paper armor. Because that’s the extent of it.
If Japan makes a claim, and Russia makes a claim they must be treated equally. Either both suck or neither do.
3 Likes
paper yamato would be op so yeah i say both suffer
do kinda wish aiming systems where modeled in properly japanese never had radar so fog and stormy maps should make it a nightmare for them
Don’t be so negative. No, Richelieu is no Yamato rival. But then, very few battleships are. Truth is, at the range most battles occur in this game, that is 10 to 15 km, Richelieu, as well as Roma, Bismarck or Vanguard have more than enough pen to penetrate Yamato’s hull in theory. We’ll see how vulnerable each warship are, but I’m certain the weaknesses we’re going to find in the game won’t be the obvious one, the historical one. It will be much more tied to the way ammo racks or armor schemes are designed in the game.
3 Likes
Plan was canceled due to war, and scrap was done in 1950s after soviet navy finally give it up to convert as carrier.
1 Like
The Yamato class has a length of 263meters.
This photo shows that she can turn with diameter at about 4 times of her length,
perhaps 1000m, which was really incredible, and you call this large???
8 Likes
It gonna be even painful to grind Naval now.
Make bug reports
In postwar British firing trials, the sample of Japanese VH plate was significantly superior to the samples of both British WW2 C and German KCnA:
Although this might be an exceptionally good sample, and Japanese VH were known to have less consistency in quality control as the British WW2 armour, the claims of Japanese WW2 armour being inferior to German KCnA is just not true. Especially considering German cemented armour quality by WW2 standards was not even impressive - in post war test grounds it has been repeatedly proven to be inferior to their British counterparts
2 Likes
what VH did they use
from shinano musahsi yamato ?
because the metal used in shinano was worse than metal of 1930s from the report in US trials
The U.S. Navy Ballistic Limit (complete penetration minimum velocity with this projectile at normal) estimated at 1839 feet/second (560.5 m/sec), plus or minus 3%, which gives it about a relative plate quality of 0.839 compared to U.S. Class “A” armor (estimated, as no such super-thick plate was ever made in the U.S.). This was about the same as the best WWI-era British KC-type armor, which was what the Japanese were trying for - they had not attempted to make improved face-hardened armor, as the U.S. Navy did during the 1930’s, for actual ship installation.
The plate was excessively brittle internally, with too much “upper bainite” crystal structure due to too-slow cooling. This was due to using the same pre-WWI British Vickers KC-type armor-hardening techniques on plates over 17" (55.8cm) thick, for which they were never intended. This problem was solved during WWII, but no more VH was ever made except for some thin experimental plates. Brittleness did not seem to reduce resistance to penetration, though cracking might cause problems due to hits that ricocheted off.